The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks treatment with bisacodyl (Dulcolax) tablets 10 mg to placebo in patients with functional constipation. In addition, the effect of treatment on quality of life and general health status was evaluated.

A Randomised, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel Group Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of 4 Weeks Treatment With Bisacodyl (Dulcolax) Tablets 10mg Administered Orally, Once Daily, in Patients With Functional Constipation.

The number of CSBMs in each of the 4 weeks was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer. The sum of the resulting numbers were divided by the number of weeks with data.

Secondary Outcome Measures:

Number of CSBMs at Week 1 [ Time Frame: Week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of CSBMs at week 1 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Number of CSBMs at Week 2 [ Time Frame: Week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of CSBMs at week 2 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Number of CSBMs at Week 3 [ Time Frame: Week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of CSBMs at week 3 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Number of CSBMs at Week 4 [ Time Frame: Week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of CSBMs at week 4 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Mean Number of SBMs Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period [ Time Frame: 4 Weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

A Spontaneous Bowel Movement (SBM) is a non-rescue medication-induced stool. The number of SBMs in each of the 4 weeks was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer. The sum of the resulting numbers were divided by the number of weeks with data.

Number of SBMs at Week 1 [ Time Frame: Week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of SBMs at week 1 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Number of SBMs at Week 2 [ Time Frame: Week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of SBMs at week 2 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Number of SBMs at Week 3 [ Time Frame: Week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of SBMs at week 3 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Number of SBMs at Week 4 [ Time Frame: Week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The number of SBMs at week 4 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.

Time to the First SBM Following the First Dose of Study Medication (SM) [ Time Frame: Time of first dose of SM up to 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The time to the first SBM following the first dose of SM was captured by the eDiary. The time was censored by the time of intake of rescue medication (RM), the time of premature discontinuation or the end of treatment whatever was minimal.

Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 in the Mean Number of CSBMs Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period Compared to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 1 Compared to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 2 Compared to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 3 Compared to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 4 Compared to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants With a Mean of at Least 1 CSBM a Day Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants With a Mean of at Least 3 CSBMs a Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Premature Withdrawals Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 1 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 1 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 2 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 2 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 3 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 3 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 4 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 4 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 1 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 1 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 2 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 2 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 3 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 3 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 4 in the Treatment Period [ Time Frame: Week 4 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 1 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 2 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 3 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 4 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 1 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 2 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 3 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 4 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 1 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 2 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 3 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 4 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 1 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 2 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 3 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 4 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 1 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 2 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 3 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 4 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.

Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline

Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Efficacy by the Investigator [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal

Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Efficacy by the Patient [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal

Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Tolerability by the Investigator [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal

Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Tolerability by the Patient [ Time Frame: 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

The dimension is a sum of 10 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.

Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems' [ Time Frame: Baseline and 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The dimension is a sum of 4 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.

The MCS is a summary scale of the dimensions vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. The component scale is norm-based to a standard population. A higher score indicates a better health.

The PCS is a summary scale of the subscales physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, and general health. The component scale is norm-based to a standard population. A higher score indicates a better health.

Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Worries and Concerns' [ Time Frame: Baseline and 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL

The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL

The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL

Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Satisfaction' [ Time Frame: Baseline and 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL

Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Overall Score [ Time Frame: Baseline and 4 weeks ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL

Suffering from functional constipation, according to their medical history, as defined by the Rome III diagnostic criteria , i.e.:Criteria fulfilled for the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months prior to diagnosis.

Must include 2 or more of the following::

straining during at least 25% of the defecations

lumpy or hard stools in at least 25% of the defecations

sensation of incomplete evacuation for at least 25% of the defecations

sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockade for at least 25% of the defecations

manual manoeuvres to facilitate at least 25% of the defecations (e.g. digital evacuation, support of the pelvic floor)

fewer than 3 defecations per week

Loose stools are rarely present without the use of laxatives

There are insufficient criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)

Able and willing to complete a daily e-diary

Able and willing to use the trial rescue medication

Signed and dated written informed consent prior to enrolment into the study in accordance with GCP and local legislation

At Visit 2, patients must comply with the following additional inclusion criteria to be eligible for entry into the treatment phase:

Functional constipation is confirmed by e-diary data at the end of the baseline period:

a. An average of less than 3 CSBMs per week, together with at least one of the following symptoms occurring at least 25% of the time:

straining

incomplete evacuation

lumpy or hard stools (i.e. type 1 or type 2 stools)

Compliant with the use of the e-diary throughout the baseline period (compliance is defined as completing 80% of the evening reports)

Compliant with the use of rescue medication throughout the baseline period. Compliance is defined as follows:

rescue medication may be used if there has not been a bowel movement for more than 72 hrs rescue medication may not be used on either day -1 or on the day of randomisation (day 1)

Exclusion Criteria:

Eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, as a cause of excessive use of laxatives

Patients whose constipation is caused by primary organic disease of the colon or pelvic floor

Patients with metabolic disorders, neurological disorders, severe or psychiatric disorders, or any other significant disease or intercurrent illness (e.g. abdominal/gastrointestinal surgery) that, in the Investigators opinion, would interfere with participation in the trial

Patients with restricted mobility (e.g. wheelchair bound, or bed-ridden) that, in the Investigators opinion, would interfere with participation in the trial

Patients with a known hypersensitivity to bisacodyl or any other ingredient in the study medication

Constipation which, in the Investigators opinion, is caused by medication (e.g. anticholinergics)

Patients who are not willing to discontinue the use of prohibited concomitant therapy

Pre-menopausal women who:

are nursing (breast-feeding) or who are pregnant OR

who are of child-bearing potential and are not practicing an acceptable method of birth control, or do not plan to continue using this method throughout the study. Acceptable methods of birth control include:

transdermal patch

intra-uterine devices/systems (IUDs/IUSs)

oral, implantable or injectable contraceptives

sexual abstinence

sterilisation or a vasectomised partner

Participation in another trial with an investigational product with 1 month of enrolment into this study

Drug or alcohol abuse

Contacts and Locations

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below.
For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00526097